Quote:
Originally Posted by Dudley
And this to me is the key, parity does NOT mean the best NA should automatically be as quick as the best turbo, it's very clear Honda have nailed something here and just being an NA team shouldn't be a passport to the same performance they have.
Chevy are ahead of 10 turbo packages and behind 1, technically parity should see them moved down. Until this round when the Audi started to get its act together and Chris James fell back, the slowest car was almost always a turbo.
Well that's the thing, if the Chevy as the fastest NA should be given breaks until it's level with the Honda, then surely the NGTCs should be given whatever they need to lap as quick as the Hondas too under that basis (Although I'm not sure what parity was promised to the NGTC).
Ultimately promising parity really is a losing battle, because there's not "Turbos and NAs", there's Hondas and Vauxhalls and 2 different kinds of Chevy and 2 different kinds of Toyota and no less than 3 kinds of car now running the same VW derived NGTC motor.
Jason has won 4/12 this year, admittedly once through hilarious dumb luck, more than any other driver. It can't be THAT bad.
And actually that's the other problem. There's 1 standout NA car, with 2 others slightly behind. There are, from Croft, at least 6 very good Turbos. If NA is good, Jason will probably win. If Turbo is good, any one of 6 could. Technically proper parity hands the championship straight to the #1 car.
|
Exactly, the problem with trying to promise parity is that the organisers are trying to serve everyone's interest - parity is never going to be fully achieved with different engines such as these at present.
The other point is important too - how do we know how much of that advantage is purely down to Turbo power? Of course an enormous amount of it undoubtedly is, but when you start taking away an advantage earned through pure hard work that's just as "unequal" and "unfair" and no matter where they stand in the championship. I'd go so far as to say I would be more angry if the car that is clearest the best out there (and not just for turbo reasons) was pegged down so much that it wasn't the fastest out there, when hard work is just turned down arbitrarily.
I think that actually if we are to base any arguments purely on "facts" I'd say that the closeness of the Chevy and other NA cars to the front-running cars, as well as being ahead of so many other turbo cars like has already been mentioned, would to me suggest there is performance parity. The only reason this is an issue is because of subjective, not objective concerns on both sides as to how fast the cars should be compared to each other - they will never be exactly the same and will never have "parity".